drz@csri.toronto.edu (Jerry Zarycky) (11/27/88)
I've just read the latest Amazing Computing, which fortunately had an in-depth article comparing various SCSI controllers. As advertised (in general) the DMA controllers were the fastest, except when the machine got tied up doing heavy graphics and sound (using up most of the available DMA slots) and small buffers were used. In general, the Supra and 2090A controllers were of equivalent speed (except for one strange case in DPaint 2, I believe), where the 2090A controllers slowed down almost an order of magnitude, while the Supra showed no apparent slowdown. I take it this is a problem with the hdisk software? Any comments from the knowledgeable at CATS? DaveH? Jerry Zarycky Usenet: {uunet,watmath}!csri.toronto.edu!drz CSNET: drz@csri.toronto.edu EAN: drz@csri.toronto.cdn BITNET: drz@csri.utoronto
drz%csri.toronto.edu%CERNVAX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (11/29/88)
I've just read the latest Amazing Computing, which fortunately had an in-depth article comparing various SCSI controllers. As advertised (in general) the DMA controllers were the fastest, except when the machine got tied up doing heavy graphics and sound (using up most of the available DMA slots) and small buffers were used. In general, the Supra and 2090A controllers were of equivalent speed (except for one strange case in DPaint 2, I believe), where the 2090A controllers slowed down almost an order of magnitude, while the Supra showed no apparent slowdown. I take it this is a problem with the hdisk software? Any comments from the knowledgeable at CATS? DaveH? Jerry Zarycky Usenet: {uunet,watmath}!csri.toronto.edu!drz CSNET: drz@csri.toronto.edu EAN: drz@csri.toronto.cdn BITNET: drz@csri.utoronto